Name: S Nuland Source: unca20060606.htmOf the unpredictable and constantly angry Paracelsus, for example, the stormy petrel who convulsed the staid medical establishment of the sixteenth century by demanding radical reforms in clinical thinking, he wrote: "This first great revolt against the slavish authority of the schools had little immediate effect, largely on account of the personal vagaries of the reformer--but it made men think."

Name: David Loftus Source: unca20060606.htm> I feel for the soldier, but freedom comes first. If Moore
> decides to settle out of court, this could be tragic.
> No matter what you think of Moore's tactics this is important
> to understand. Freedom is supposed to be messy.

Not so messy as to allow one person to damage another's reputation by dishonesty, if that is indeed what happened.

Freedom of speech protects one's ability to say what one believes and supports in public, not the opposite. If Moore misrepresented the soldier's position, than that was a little like stealing from him. Evidently you've never been misquoted in the papers and had to live with the consequences.

What makes me skeptical is that it took so long for the soldier to figure out he had been misrepresented and to do something about it.

In 76 two of my High School friends came up to me very pissed. Thrusting a book out in front of them one said, "Give it to Ron, HE'LL like it." What did I know it was a book, we had all read Heinlein and Asimov and Bradbury, and That guy who's last name starts with C, but who now escapes me. We were all complete science fiction addicts but nobody had ever mentioned Harlan Ellison. Heck, we were all still virgins then, what did we know of nothin?

That book sat in the trunk of my volkswagen for two years. Eventually I cleaned the car and found Paingod and Other Delusions.

So thanks to the Science Fiction book club and my two friends ignorance, I've been enjoying HE for a long time.

Name: Steve Barber Source: unca20060606.htmFrom the excerpt below we still have a lot of open questions. I'd have to see the film, but it seems that the lawsuit is derived not from comments altered by Moore, but by the context created in the scene directly before the soldier's footage.

This is going to be very difficult to prove in court, and may (said in full Conspiracy Theorist mode) be part of a preemptive strike to avoid the film being used before the Fall elections.

The first two are of Bourbon Street after 10pm on a Saturday night. If you've ever been there you'll be startled with how empty it is, relatively speaking. The third shot is of an empty restaurant during lunch hour (that wasn't the specific intent of the picture, but we didn't have to ask anyone to move or keep out of the way in order to get it).

Name: Steve Barber Source: unca20060606.htmIn Moore's film Damon is shown lying on a gurney, covered in bandages. He says he feels as if he's "being crushed in a vise," adding, "but [the painkillers] do a lot to help it. And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

The scene prior to Damon's features U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat from Washington state, saying, "You know, [those in the Bush administration] say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

In his lawsuit, Damon has argued that the juxtaposition of those two scenes made it sound as if the military and the Bush administration had left him to grapple alone with pain or possibly even a drug addiction when, in reality, he "agrees with and supports the president and the United States' war effort and was not left behind."

Name: Robert Morales Source: unca20060606.htmIf you're on active duty in a military hospital, it's not your call to give permission to any journalistic body - that's to be granted by the armed forces, of which every soldier is a representative. This would be like the Kennedy family suing Oliver Stone because they didn't like the way the Zaprudar film was used in JFK - even though no one would doubt their emotional distress. (Zaprudar sold the film to Time Life, later Time Warner, and the Stone film was a Warner release. In fact, I visited Kyle Baker on the Warner Studios lot when he was there as a producer: JFK had just been released, and actual still frames of the assassination decorated the Warner commissary!)

The other problem with this suit is that the soldier would have to show that Moore harbored some sort of personal malice toward him, without which there can be neither slander nor libel.

Name: Tom Galloway Source: unca20060606.htm"I don't remember that scene, but if the soldier wins, imagine how this could chill free speech. Anybody who is offended by some footage in a movie could sue, for any reason."

Um, huh?

First off, it's a common misconception that the First Amendment protects all speech from all things. It doesn't. It protects it *from the government*. It says "Congress shall not...", not "Everyone has to...".

And there is a considerable difference between being misrepresented and being offended. To pull out the obligatory Spider-Man quote, with great power comes great responsibility. Someone whose work will, with foreknowledge, be seen by large numbers of people has considerable power with regards to how someone will be perceived and how their reputation will be affected by how they are portrayed. They have the responsibility to correctly portray them. Commentary about such is fine, but misrepresenting someone and their actions is not.

I've now had one professional attempt to PhotoShop that snap. I'm not wild about the result. Care to take Attempt #2 before I go to the next profferer? If so, call me. You've got the number.

Now, to thrust my bare hands into the lava flow.

Having read what there is to consult, on the much-bruited lawsuit against Moore, having seen the film, having watched silently on the sideliness as Ray Bradbury voiced HIS concerns, it is my VERY VERY VERY humble opinion that:

1) Sorry the dude lost his limb(s), but what the hell did he expect as a terrible possibility if he went off to a war? Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? He accepted the flag-waving and heroic best wishes when he went marching off; now he has to spend the rest of a crippled life bearing the responsibility for his own actions. And 2) He has no case. He will lose if it goes to trial, and Moore shouldn't volunteer one cent to placate him.

His assertions are illiterate, opportunistic, bogus and well, pure horseshit. 3) Let's take him for some hot hot hot coffee at McDonald's, and drop a horsefly from the horseshit in his salad, while we're at it. Or maybe a severed digit.

This is what we--who are cold, cruel, amoral and hardnosed-- call "the long con."

Name: Edward Brock Source: unca20060606.htmJust saw the trailer for Mel Gibson's new film APOCALPYTO. The film is another of his "historical" epics (BRAVEHEART, The PATRIOT & The PASSION OF THE CHRIST). This one is about the fall of the Mayan culture & will use "real" Mayan dialogue, as he did with Aramaic in The PASSION.

It looks interesting, but my fear is that the Mayans in the film will be portrayed as "evil" or "satanists". I hope Mel will leave his own personal beliefs at home & just make a damn good film. (I will say that it's nice to see a film deal with something other than the standard Europeanism that dominates cinema).

Name: Bud Webster Source: unca20060606.htmOkay, given what you've said here, I have to agree with Harlan that the guy has no case. It would have been one thing to cut actual interview footage with him to misrepresent his opinion, but the juxtaposition of this footage (which, if quoted fully, does NOT include his political opinions regarding the war) with another interview doesn't misrepresent much of anything, at least not to any degree he can complain about - let alone sue over.

Having said that, I will freely admit that I cordially despise Moore as a propagandist who would love to be seen as a polemicist.

Ummmm Frankie,
Free speech should be free but the line should be indelibly drawn against anyone who would deliberately twist the statements of others to suit their purpose du jour. What Michael Moore did-- if this is in fact true-- is beneath contempt and should be dragged out from under the stairs and into the noonday sun. The footage should be excised from the film and the soldier should receive not only an apology but a punitive settlement that is sizable enough to give Moore pause the next time he thinks about victimizing a disabled veteran or anyone else. The amount should also be large enough to draw the attention of the media and provide them with impetus to properly publicize Moore's unscrupulous and dishonest deed. If the Enquirer has been held culpable under similar instances then Moore shouldn't skate. He's no different-- tell the truth, don't twist it or skew it to suit your purposes or pony up.

Sorry, kitten-- continue.
Cindy

Awwww nooooo....Harlan!
He lost his arms in service on behalf of all of us. If we didn't have boys like this who think about the role and not about the potential consequences, we could not have put an end to Hitler's regime. This soldier's actions, however brash, were noble and important. In my own humble opinion; I think the soldier would win if he takes the case before a jury. A judge might be something else entirely, but I think a jury could see a patriot whose life was forever diminished because of his loyal and self-less service on behalf of all of us. They'd also see in Moore, a man who discounted the feelings of a disabled veteran for the sake of his own propaganda. It's about truth in advertising and honor in reporting. If Moore needs to trash the truth in order to communicate his message then he should go into the Baptist ministry and leave entertainment to the professionals like Geraldo and Springer.